Moral relativism

[Someone here]

Most secular contemporary thinkers agree that there are no absolute objective moral values. Meaning that the only way for us to arrive to objective morality is to essentially invent a moral standard that most people agree with (such as well-being) and base our morality around that generally agreeable standard. However there's no way getting around the fact that people throughout ages and living among different cultural environments have had wastly different interpretations about what can be considered well-being or harmful. To me it's simply disingenuous to suggest that contemporary Western thinkers are the only ones who can state with absolute certainty what is good for a person and what are the standards we should base our "objective" morality around.

Are secular philosophers trying to find cure for moral relativism simply because it's harmful for a society? But if moral relativism is the only logical outcome based on our knowledge about the nature of reality, shouldn't we be honest about it instead of trying to tiptoe around the issue?

[Ulax]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

Most secular contemporary thinkers agree that there are no absolute objective moral values. Meaning that the only way for us to arrive to objective morality is to essentially invent a moral standard that most people agree with (such as well-being) and base our morality around that generally agreeable standard. However there's no way getting around the fact that people throughout ages and living among different cultural environments have had wastly different interpretations about what can be considered well-being or harmful. To me it's simply disingenuous to suggest that contemporary Western thinkers are the only ones who can state with absolute certainty what is good for a person and what are the standards we should base our "objective" morality around.

Are secular philosophers trying to find cure for moral relativism simply because it's harmful for a society? But if moral relativism is the only logical outcome based on our knowledge about the nature of reality, shouldn't we be honest about it instead of trying to tiptoe around the issue?

When i was younger I used to think philosophy was the be all end all. Nowadays, I think most of its a joke. It is akin to the telling of elaborate bedtime stories. I think its better to study sociology instead. And, namely the sociology of discourse. The academy has a certain structure to it, and takes place within a certain context and various systems operate to produce the set of knowledge that it does.

To my mind, it is not that thinkers produce theories. Instead, those theories are imparted on them through systems external to their free choice. Be they systems at the level of mind, society or elsewhere.

[Rokazulu]

Morality is relative to the standards of the individual which is heavily influenced by the society around them.

Some like to surrender into their immorality on this basis, making it easier to live the life they desire, without any of the hiccups involved in the idea that there is karmic consequences to all of our actions. A karma that is entirely self-imposed by our free will to make more preferable decisions.

Morality is definitely a strong word to use. Something highly evolved beings would not even use. The paradox is, that highly evolved beings reside within highly moral societies. By choice, and by the blissful freedom that surrounds them in their society.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, BenG said:

However, it really isn't this simple. Constructed moral frameworks (even if they are artificial) play a core social function and society just isn't ready to abandon moral absolutes yet. Most people can't even accept that on an intellectual level, let alone on a practical level.

Exactly this.

We can't abandon all our constructed morality, because the courtsystem is based upon morality. There are many many heavy and hard problems that can't be thrown to other people's judgement to decide in what situation what should they do.

Imagine if being able to murder, rape, torture, theft, scamming, kidnapping, robbing would based upon individual feelings and choice.

If there is no morality in use, then all the choices are made by that particuar individual's moral framework. The problem comes when one person's moral framework is that slavery, rape, kindapping,torturing is an okay thing to do, and in an other peson's moral framework its not. How can we have a functioning society like that?

[Someone here]

I think it's hard to object to the assertion that there are no absolute objective moral values. But I still think (hope? lol) that morals can be universal (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but not absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism).
 

[zurew]

46 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I think it's hard to object to the assertion that there are no absolute objective moral values. But I still think (hope? lol) that morals can be universal (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but not absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism).
 

The goal would be to make spirtuality and spiritual practices much more common in society, where most humans can embody love and empathy.

We start giving more fucks about other creatures and people, if our sense of self is containing more and more things. No one would want to hurt his/her own parts (unless he/she is masochistic).

So the goal would be to embody love, and to make our sense of self bigger (the end goal is to make it so big that it contains the whole Universe).

We would still need some kind of a morality system probably, but it would be much easier to navigate, compared to now.

So this would transcend the rational morality, where you need to basically justify everything, what i am talking about would be based upon embodyment.

But the embodyment of love is a pipe dream for now, we are really far away from it, so we will need morality for a long time.

Edited May 16, 2022 by zurew

[gettoefl]

morality needs to be decided for oneself

do you pull the trigger if someone is running at you with a knife, do you abort the foetus since it has a deformity, do you execute the murderer

awakening is to see that morality is your level of awareness

in awareness everything done with totality is right, if i murder you i am doing so because it is necessary

[Reciprocality]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I think it's hard to object to the assertion that there are no absolute objective moral values. But I still think (hope? lol) that morals can be universal (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but not absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism).
 

It is an oxymoron, it is like saying that there can be an opinion independent opinion.

Not only is non-relative morals present only in fantasy, but the very hypothesis is paradoxical. 

 

Instead, the question is why "morals" are as they are, it is first here that any universals are given meaning, namely on what there is of some thought or language which makes it appear that people are in agreement. Or some universal truth concerning the reality as opposed to content of the hearts intentionality itself such as in Emotivism, or in relation to thought thereafter, cognitivism.

If me and you and every other man in some known world would express agreement on every imaginable virtue, good act or deed, even that has no bearing concerning relative character of the values held.

In arguing otherwise you would also have to say that you can look trough my eyes, or scratch my back with my hands alone.

 

When someone speak of morals in a context different from its inherent relativity, they are not speaking about morals, and are unaware of how the mind have tricked them. They are changing the goalpost as they walk along, in one instance morals are normative as what is held such that some action may be taken, in another morals are categories or descriptions of this object of concern taken for the object itself.

They are confused because their whole life they thought that there were such a thing as a synthetic agreement, you and me may both agree to "murder Putin" but this is a description of a moral sentiment not the actually described, you and me may both vote for some assassination or do the act itself, but it is totally under determined whether this represents the same sentiment, the actual value itself.

There is absolutely no meaningful meta ethical "middle" between saying that morals are statements concerning logical necessity/natural validity, as a mere calculation on the one hand and on the other saying that morals express emotions. and are totally relative.

 

Just like behaviorism is not psychology neither is a theory nor a sentence of moral essence.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Leo Gura]

It's sorta like telling a kid that there are no rules. True but dangerous.